Qualifying for the Nationals - Page 3

TIG, Well we do agree on one thing...I too have the same feelings as you on HOT dogs.  I also agree with you that dogs will have bad days and so will handlers.  My original point was that I have seen many times in my region a dog that was no where near a 270 get one from a friedly judge just so he can go to the Nationals.  And what happens, he looks like shit, cuz the dog should never should have gone. I know it happens more than just in my region. 

I know this is a stetch but I figured if the  organization (WDA, UScA) cared about this going on with the Judging then they could take a more active part in the regionals, as far as making sure they are to the caliber that they as an organization want. 

If this happened then a 270 at a Regional would be more ideal.  I guess I am just tired of seeing titles and scores awarded that should not be.  We need to start somewhere with putting an end to this.  Some people cheat just to get a title, others do  it to get a ticket to the Nationals.  I was just venting some ideas, I knew many would disagree but that is the nice thing about this board. 

TIG, you have many good ideas and thoughts, I agree with you in a lot of what you said.  I dont want to see dogs thrown away or abused.  I just want the integrity back into our sport.  And as long as there is a reward that can be sought for cheating it will hinder the  process.  I know this would not be a fix all  but like I said its a start.

Shawn

Zahnburg, a good question and I think I can appreciate the jist of what you're suggesting... that the Nationals should stage the country's best competitors.  However, it's not clear to me what would be gained by further limiting the field of competitors.  Suppose that we distill the Nationals down to a field of a dozen or so serious competitors... now what?  A small spectacle of "Pro Dog Trainers R Us"? 

I don't have a problem with a team needing 270 points to qualify, and not everyone who scores those kind of points will enter to compete anyway.  Sure, there will always be a handful of starry eyed handlers with their "gifted" points who will sign up for the Nats thinking they've got game, but that is likely a self-correcting system when they trial in the lime light under judges with sharp pencils and get the points they arguably deserve. 

In the meanwhile, I believe it's very meaningful for some folks to say, "I was there.  I competed in the Nationals."  The best competitors will come out on top anyway.  Unless we've got a problem with 200 teams rushing to sign up, and a plethora of mediocre performances, why impose further restrictions?

Good discussion, by the way, and I welcome your thoughts.

Yvette